2015 (8) TMI 1021

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g that relinquishment of the share of assessee in the property comprising of land situated at Padmarao Nagar Colony, Secunderabad in favour of her sisters was a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act and capital gain accruing on such transfer was exigible to capital gains tax u/s. 45 of the Act. 3. The facts and circumstances under which the aforesaid issue arises for consideration are as follows. The assessee is an individual. The property comprising of land and building at Padmarao Nagar Colony, Secunderabad [hereinafter referred to as "the Secunderabad property"] belonged to one C.S. Venkatesan, he having purchased the same in the year as a plot of land on which he had put up construction of building in the year 1976.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9;s wife and mother of assessee and two daughters were looked after by C.V. Ranjini and therefore the property was given to her by way of relinquishment by other sharers. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. R. Nagaraja Rao, 362 ITR 565 and K.N. Madhusudhan, GTA Nos. 1 & 2/2008 dated 6.9.2010. 7. The CIT(A) did not agree with the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. He, firstly, found that the decision of R. Nagaraja Rao (supra) was a case where there was transfer of shares, pursuant to a family arrangement, whereby family disputes were settled at the instance of arbitrators. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka after making a reference to the decision of K.N. Madhusudan (supra) ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....member may get lesser share or such share for consideration of release of share but in this case only the property involved was share in the said property which had been released against the receipt of cash and therefore instrument of release could not be called a family settlement. The CIT(A) therefore dismissed the appeal of assessee. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee made identical submissions before the Tribunal as that made before the CIT(A). In addition, he also relied on the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. T. Gayatri v. ITO, 150 ITD 48 (Bang). 9. The ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(Appeals). 10. We have given a v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der the head 'capital gain'. The assessee took a stand that the sum in question was a receipt consequent to a family arrangement and therefore, there was no transfer of any capital asset so as to attract provisions of section 45. 11. The Tribunal dealt with the aforesaid issue and came to the conclusion that sum received by assessee is traceable to the realisation of rights as legal heir of intestate succession and not to any sale, relinquishment or extinguishment of right to property. The Tribunal took note of the fact that there was a suit for partition in which the assessee became entitled to 1/10th share over the property. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that there was a compromise recorded between the parties before the appe....